Is there sign-tracking in aversive conditioning?

Abstract

The present experiment studied the approach-withdrawal behavior of rats relative to conditioned stimuli (CS) that were paired with shock (paired), paired with absence of shock (unpaired), or that bore no temporal relation with shock (random). In the paired condition, the rats equally divided their time between the side of a tilt cage on which the CS was presented and the other side. In the random condition, the rats displayed a preference for the CS side. In the unpaired condition, the rats displayed a larger preference for the CS side. The range of preferences observed was small compared with that typically observed in appetitive sign-tracking. These results are consistent with a small aversive sign-tracking effect coupled with an unconditioned preference for the CS. Hearst (1975) has emphasized the fact that the autoshaping paradigm (Brown & Jenkins, 1968) appears to represent the classical conditioning of skeletal responses. These are coordinated, organized movements of the whole organism, in contrast to simple reflexive skeletal responses. Hearst and Jenkins (1974) have labeled this directed action sign-tracking.An experiment by Wasserman, Franklin, and Hearst (1974) provides an example of sign-tracking. Four groups of pigeons were run in an operant chamber with a pivoted floor that allowed Wasserman et al. to monitor the pigeon's location. For the paired group , one of two side keys was illuminated immediately before each food presentation. The location of the illuminated key alternated randomly from trial to trial. For the unpaired group, food was presented during the intertrial interval, but never within 33 sec of a key illumination. The results showed that the pigeons in the paired condition not only pecked the keys (the standard autoshaping finding), but also stood on the same side of the box that contained the illuminated key. More surprising, perhaps, was the performance of the pigeons in the unpaired condition. These birds spent most of their CS time on the side of the chamber opposite the lighted key . They withdrew from a cue signaling no food.The purpose of the current experiment was to determine whether a sign-tracking analysis could be applied to aversive reinforcers , specifically, footshock . While the results of Biederman, D'Amato, and Keller (1964), McAdam (1964), andWhittleton, Kostanek, and Sawrey (1965) are consistent with aversive sign-tracking, the interpretation of these results is complicated by the existence of an instrumental avoidance contingency. In the absence of instrumental contingencies , will rats withdraw from a signal for shock and approach a signal for no shock? METHOD SubjectsTwenty-four male Wistar rats. approximately 90 days old, were used. They were maintained in individual cages with free ' access to food and water. ApparatusA 17 ern wide x 36 em long x 19 cm high aluminum box was mounted over a pivoted grid floor. The fulcrum of the floor was in the center of the box , perpendicular to the longest walls. On each end wall a 2.5-cm hole was drilled 5 cm above the...

Advances toward a biological theory of aversive learning: Flirtation or commitment?

“…Although Karpicke, Christoph, Peterson, and Hearst (1977) obtained indirect evidence for this kind of sign-tracking, they did not measure the positions of their rats with respect to the stimuli. Using direct measurement of position, Bartter and Masterson (1980) found evidence for aversive sign-tracking, as defined above; however, the amounts of approach and avoidance were small compared to amounts commonly observed in the appetitive case. Bartter and Masterson suggested that an analogy based on stimulus-unconditioned stimulus relationships might be inferior to one based on stimulus-incentive relationships.…”

Conditioned inhibition, inhibitory learning, response inhibition, and inhibitory control: Outlining a conceptual clarification.

“…Evidence also supports the complementary effect involved in approaching responses elicited by cues that predict the omission of an aversive stimulus (see Leclerc & Reberg, 1980). However, some attempts to reproduce such a phenomenon in the aversive domain have not been entirely successful (e.g., Bartter & Masterson, 1980; Nieto & Boakes, 1987).…”